"From my point of view the [George Lucas is] evil!" Or, how to write a competent ending to Star Wars

I'm under the impression that almost everyone on earth, and certainly most of the western hemisphere, is at least vaguely familiar with Star Wars, and unless you've been living under a rock for the past decade, you've seen, and have been annoyed by, the prequels. And while there may be a scattered fanbase who remains loyal to George Lucas and his Vision, the simple fact remains that they're just not as good as the first few.

I could go on for days about why I think the prequels are awful, but everybody already knows why and adding my opinions of the matter is like trying to pissing in a river of already-years-old-piss from other people. I'll take my golden shower elsewhere, thank you. No. What I'm here to talk about is Anakin and his specific story, from Phantom Menace to Revenge of the Sith, and add my own awesomely epic opinions of what would have made a much better movie in the sexy opinion of an unpaid internet blogger (which we all know is like, third highest on People's Opinions Who Matter scale).

Ok, so the first two movies, in terms of Anakin's development, aren't that bad. He's a little kid who delivers his dialogue stiffly and builds wacky robots and high-tech flying machines from scrap metal, pretty basic. But we do hit a snag here in the introduction of midichlorians, an apparently microscopic little bug that oozes force power - meaning that anyone who has a bunch of these nano-plot devices in their body can the t3h best jedi evar. Which makes no sense, if you think about it. These people have had Faster-than-light capable travel for a millenia, but wouldn't they be able to, I dunno, transplant midichlorians? Then anyone could be Jedi-capable and not even have to worry about it. I can imagine some nefarious Sith lord attempting it, if not the Jedi themselves for some purpose. But I digress - midichlorians = moar power, and Anakin has that shit in spades. He wins the race, leaves Tatooine and awkwardly promises his mother he'd return, only to - oh no! - find out that the Jedi council won't train him because he's too whiny. Er... old. He's too old. And they really, really dig his haircut.

More stuff happens. A badass lightsaber fight ensues, people die, and George Lucas kills the most compelling bad guy in the series (more on that later, actually). Obi-Wan starts training Anakin, but in the next movie - gasp - he's arrogant and headstrong! Just like Obi-wan used to be (somewhere, George Lucas turns to you and says: See the duality?), but now his hair has a braid, and Obi-wan's doesn't. In this movie, George tries his hand at writing a love story with dialogue so awkward and forceful (look guys, they're REALLY in love, okay?) it would be out of place in the High School Musical prequels. Despite Anakin's obvious cliche-ridden romance, he gets married to a senator in gross violation of the Jedi's strict "no fucking" policy, but does it in secret.

And here, even if it was poorly written and poorly executed, we have a worthy plot point. Anakin is passionate and emotional, which ties into his willfulness and arrogance. It fits. It should have been the beginning of a very major rift between Anakin and the Jedi order, but instead serves no other purpose than to justify Luke's existence later, and give rise to the ridiculous plot device present in the third movie - "he wants to save Padme!"

George, let me take you aside here, and just say this: We Fucking Get It. Anakin's a good fellow, he's in love with his wife and wants to keep her safe. Logical. But he's also a Jedi, and shouldn't be married, and nobody knows he's married to her (expect maybe Obi-wan). Now look - the way the rest of the plot plays out makes no goddamned sense. Sure, the political backdrop thing is alright, but nobody really cares about that. We wanted to see Darth Fucking Vader, not senate debates, even if they are, in a hyper-nerdy sort of way, sort of interesting. But only sort of. Say, interesting in a way that watching a video recording of the Yalta Conference is only interesting because you've seen Saving private Ryan - it doesn't really serve the plot of the movie, but knowing about it gives you street cred. Back on topic. Anakin learns from the Chancellor that he can learn things about keeping people alive through the Force, but not from a Jedi (because they're total pussies compared to the Sith).

Now, again, you have another element that could possibly work. Anakin is already sort of estranged from the Council because of his arrogance, and because of his secret romance. So, giving him a mentor whose designs are less than moral is a good way to develop that rift. However, I think the focus of that mentor relationship is fundamentally flawed. I can understand that Anakin would like to keep his lady alive, especially since she looks so much like Natalie Portman, but its execution is amateur in the extreme, given that, later, Anakin goes from "I want to keep my hot wife alive" to "murdering children is ok, as long as my hot wife is alive and I please the lecherous old dude who promises to teach me how to do so. Oh, also, killing mace Windu is totally easy. " in the space of about 2 scenes. Guh? Oh, but then he has yellow eyes! Yellow! He must be evil, right? Totally. But at least Padme is still alive, and fuckable.

And the rest of the plot is melodramatic and ridiculous, but we all know it well. Darth Vader (a name Palpatine pulled right out of his ass) yells "Noooo!" and hearts break, and another relatively awesome lightsaber battle ensues (a sidenote - look how Obi-wan kills Darth Maul, then watch how he maims Anakin. Why did Maul not realize he had the high ground? Shouldn't Obi-wan have ended up in five peices underneath Darth Maul's lightsaber? Another plot misfire, and another visual link between Anakin and Obi-wan was squandered), but that's the high point of the movie, and only if you ignore everything Ankain says.

So, that's the plot. Now, here's my alternative plot. It contains most of the same elements, but ends up becoming almost coherent. Almost. I am, after all, doing this for free.

So, in movie one, most things happen the same. Anakin gets of Tatooine, the Council decides his bowl-cut is too awesome to pass over, and he get trained as a Jedi.

Movie two - that shit with the sand people, sure. Keep it. Or maybe use something less convoluted, like she died of old age or some sickness that the little flying guy didn't bother to help cure, and Anakin, instead of killing armed, known-to-be-hostile warriors (then feeling way emo about it), he fuckign murders someone. That's a helluva lot stronger than some sand people, and something that would certainly raise some red flags in the viewer. Wouldn't even have to show it. Just have Anakin pick up some scrap titanium then cut away. Oh fuck son! It might even make Anakin's murder of countless children feasible. Then Ankain marries Padme, and maybe have a scene where Obi-wan (who we know knows about his secret wedding) lectures Anakin about the dangers of emotional attachment. Ankain is like "Whoa man, off my grill." Then Obi-wan can make him do some lame shit like guard some decrepit chancellor instead of going with him and kicking ass in the Clone Wars.

Movie Three - Anakin is guarding some old fuck who turns out to be kind of interesting, since he knows the Force (but ain't a Jedi!). Palpatine, using his midichlorians, finds out about Anakin's marital state, and warns him about the Jedi, maybe even makes up some story (or borrows one from the EU) about a married Jedi expelled and dishonored from the Order ("the point here, Anakin, the Jedi are douchebags, and I'm totally awesome" - Chancellor). The old guy then talks about how badly the Jedi are fucking up the war, and someone needs to go take care of that fucking Sith guy that's breaking the Republic's balls. Anakin brings it up to the Council - "hey guys, the lame bad guy George introduced for this movie is killing a lot of our laser-fodder clones, so I'm gonna go kill him." "No, fucker. Guard the Chancellor." Anakin gets all pissy and complains about how the Jedi are fuckfaces, and he could totally go kill the dude. Then Palpatine says "Hmm... I could always take a trip..." then they go, Anakin has a fight with somebody who'll never be cooler than Darth Maul, but finds out that it was all a set-up! Palpatine, being the Sith Lord in secret, lured Anakin away from his hot wife and she gets way hurt in a secret attack (disguised as an attack against the Jedi), and then twists Anakin's emotions so that he has a reason to blame the Jedi, and justifies his change of heart. So Anakin, already blaming the Jedi for the attack, gets even more pissed when the Council finds out that he has a secret wife who just gave birth to twins on her death bed and dies (not of a freakin' broken heart, George Lucas) and decides to give him some sort of punishment. They also tell him to stay away from the Chancellor, because he's all evil and Ankain's like "No, he totally isn't, we're like, best friends." Anakin gives them all the finger and wanders away with his kiddies to the Chancellor, trying to get some justice.

The difference is that while George Lucas' plot was only ok because "It's Star Wars" it really is devoid of any level of sense. Anakin's change is compltely illogical and hardly justifies such a drastic turn from sort-of good to totally evil. But if his wife dies, and he blames the jedi for it? Who wouldn't want to take people down? They fucked up, and let his wife die. Any egomaniac would react the same - it's not his fault, it's the Council's. And so he takes his feud with them to the extreme - hunting them don and exterminating them because the Chancellor/Emperor filled the void left by the deth of his wife with hatred and malevolence. It fits with the themes of Star Wars as a whole and gives us even more sympathy for Dath Vader, and more strongly emphasizes his other change of heart, at the end of Return of the Jedi.

The rest of it could go the same, with the Jedi trying to arrest the Chancellor, Anakin stopping it, then being totally committed to being a douche and fights Obi-wan (with a more satisfying ending), and after being picked up by the Chancellor he gets cyborged and becomes the badass, emotionless killing machine we all know and love.

I want to see that fucking movie.

Moral Complexity

Don’t read this unless you’ve seen The Dark Knight. I’m going to pretty loose-lipped when it comes to spoilers, so avert your eyes until you have seen the movie.

I’m not really going to talk about how absolutely amazing The Dark Knight is in broad terms, everyone has already heard more than enough about all of that. All I’ll say broadly is that every single person should go see the movie, more than once. It’s fucking astounding.

But the subject of this post is to take a couple of specific examples that really stuck out in my mind and sort of delve deeper into those aspects. The most obvious and interesting little detail I noticed was the incredibly complex nature of the Joker’s character and how it is embodied in his nefarious plots. Now, even though the Joker himself claims (in one of my favorite scenes, between him and Harvey Dent) to be nothing more than a person who “does things”, his every plot, his every action, is predetermined to a degree. That he is a genius is obvious (take note, Jack Nicholson), and that he is completely lacking anything resembling a conscience is equally obvious, if not more so (take note, Jack Nicholson). From breaking himself into and out of prison to grab a squealer to dropping a warning to the people of Gotham to avoid the tunnels and bridges to better serve his purpose of trapping the ferry crowd into a moral nightmare, he controls the city more ably than any of the other characters. His plot is intricate, involving every major character behaving in the manner he has determined that they would, and upon it hinges the fickle nature of nobility of purpose, justice and the fragility of it all.

Which brings me round to an interesting example of a visual metaphor. In the first scene in which the Joker makes an appearance, he escapes in a school bus, pulling right into line with the rest of Gotham’s school buses, shrewdly disguising himself from the police, who arrive just after he pulls away. It works as a kick ass bank heist scene, but it also serves up an interesting aspect of the Joker – he uses the system he so despises for the purpose of bringing down the same. He’s dependant on it, just as his character is dependant on Batman. It’s just as Alfred said: Batman crossed the line first. The Joker is just crossing it harder, with the intention of erasing the line and covering it with explosions. A similar event happens later in the film, with the Joker escaping the hospital he just blew up in another bus – again, disguising his anarchy in the folds of a regimented society. He knows exactly what will happen when he tells Gotham to kill Mr. Reese, just as he knows exactly what the people of Gotham will do when he tells them to avoid the tunnels and bridges because of the nature of the structured society he’s fighting.

This is when it gets interesting.

Towards the end, in another of my favorite scenes, the Joker tells a pissed off Batman: “Do you think I would risk the battle of Gotham’s soul on a fistfight with you?” Of course not. He has already made his play, the rest is just fireworks to sate his appetite for destruction. His real plot has already succeeded: the forced metamorphosis of Gotham’s White Knight Harvey Dent into the vengeance-driven Two-Face. Batman, at this point had not been aware of it. Dent had been collateral damage of the Joker’s personal battle with Batman; that Harvey was his target all along is a revelation that catches him off guard. It is in this scene where the Joker truly shines – he doesn’t care that he’s been physically beaten. He doesn’t care that the ferries didn’t blow up. The real fish was landed long ago.

It’s intricate enough, but the real complexity arrives unsaid in the film: The Joker wins. He targeted the best man in Gotham and reduced him into a killer, a murderer, someone who is no better than the countless men he put behind bars. But we already knew this. The Joker wins because of Batman and Gordon’s reaction to what Dent has become; they cover it up, and in doing so prove that the Joker was, again, several steps ahead of them. He proves that the three best men have no faith in the people of their own city. Forget that the Joker’s ferry plot was foiled by those very same people – Batman and Gordon believe that the fickle nature of the people in their city will be completely crushed when they see what happened to Dent, and they give Harvey a hero’s funeral. They lie to spare the public the fact the Joker has effectively killed the heart of the city.

It doesn’t matter if the Joker is right or not; it doesn’t matter what the true reaction of the city will be. What matters is the belief of Jim Gordon and Batman, the two trusted protectors of Gotham. And they believe what the Joker told them to be true. And that is why the Joker wins.

An Open Letter to M. Night Shyamalan

Warning!! Spoilers may follow. But it probably won't matter, because M. Night has done everything he could to make his own movie unwatchable, and a few spoilers can do no more damage.

Dear Mr. M. Night Shyamalan:

Having seen your latest movie, The Happening, I have to raise a few objections. I will refrain, for the most part, of poking fun at the laughably ridiculous plot and instead give a harsh critique of your movie from a technical standpoint. But instead of stacking your film up next to the classic films to which you have compared The Happening, I will use your own movies, and my opinions of them as a base. The result, Mr. Shyamalan, is either a steady decline in anything relating to skill in filmmaking, or a steep incline of your own rather comprehensive ego. Or perhaps a mixture of both. But before I begin, let me say this: I like you as a director, and I think you should continue making films. But next time, please - please - take more time in making it and actually apply your obvious skills as a director.

Onwards!

The first scene should have been frightening. It should have sent chills up my spine, should have left a lasting impression of all those frozen people in Central Park clawing themselves to death to linger in my mind for weeks. But you know what ruined it? Your own writing. Example: People do not narrate the events surrounding them. And if they do, it is with short, wild bursts of emotion- or panic-laden, often incomprehensible speech. “What the hell?” the absurd dialogue may begin, with the protagonist of this example peering closer, until narrowed eyes blossom into saucers, followed by a shrieking ejaculation of shrieking concern. Perhaps this person would call for help, or they may decide to charge right on over and help the person who has, before their own disbelieving gaze, clawed themselves to death. Or perhaps they’d be so totally shocked that they would do nothing, paralyzed with shock. There are a hundred thousand responses to watching someone claw themselves to death, and I think you have found the absolutely least scary example. “Oh my god, is that person clawing at themselves? Is that blood?” Followed by an unconvincing wide-eyed stare. Dumb. More effective could have been simply the noise of the event, the camera never straying from the face of the strickedn woman as her friend beside her puts a hairpin through her jugular. You’ve managed such scenes with skill before, Mr. M. Night. Remember the scene in Signs when the aliens were parading through Mel Gibson’s yard, climbing on the roof, killing the dogs? We witnessed it all through the cramped, dark confines of a basement with only a flashlight providing the focal point. That was frightening. We didn’t need to see what was happening, because you had actors who could act, and apparently convincing foley artists as well.

There are countless other examples of misfires in the film, I can’t even begin to describe them all. The scene in the lion cage, for one, eerily reflects the scene from Signs in which the children’s birthday party is interrupted by the alien. And throughout it all, the audience is witnessing it through the catatonic, obsessive gaze of Joaquin Phoenix. I still jump when I see it, after countless viewings. It is a well-filmed, genuinely frightening moment. The chaotic viewing of the scene in the lion cage was ruined by two things – the absurdity of the lions’ behavior (one would think that a lion, when pissed off, wouldn’t simply nip at an arm, it would tackle the interloper and crush its windpipe, as it must have done to any other type of threat), the almost-more-absurd reactions of the crowd – both those near the cage and those viewing it on the iPhone (as to your equally absurd product placement I’ll not comment). The whole scene was flimsy, clumsy, and absurd. Again, I find myself sitting in the theatre with only the absence of any kind of fear or fright, longing for something that seemed to have been filmed by a person who knows what the fuck he is doing. But alas, maybe that day in the editing room you were gone early for lunch? Or maybe you were too busy admiring yourself in the mirror. Or comparing yourself to Alfred Hitchcock (even at your best, you have a way to come to meet that legend). I can handle an awkward scene or two, if the actors are convincing. I loved signs, even though the illogical nature of the ending drove some other viewers away. But Signs roped me in with convincing actors who had a well-written script behind them.

Which brings me to my next point. The acting. Was atrocious. Mark Wahlberg didn’t even look like he knew where he was, and everything he said was a question. Even his questions sounded more interrogative than was necessary, and when it was necessary, he still managed to make the line sound stupid. “Do you remember our first date!?” It sounded like every single person he talked to was a dog. “Hey buddy, people are killing themselves? Let us in and give us some food?” Dumb. And we know he’s better, which makes it worse. We also know that you’ve directed better performances out of people. Before I saw Unbreakable I was unconvinced as to Bruce Willis’ skill at handling anything beyond pointing a gun and barking out one-liners (As badass as Die Hard is, and will always remain, Bruce Willis was never known as being an actor that carried around a lot of depth. Which is fine). But you gave him a startlingly real, down to earth performance in a movie where you managed to do the same to what could have been ludicrously ridiculous. I’m still blown away every time I watch it. The script was wonderful, the acting was superb, and the entire film was more intelligently handled than its plot called for. In short, I loved it.

You may have had a few hints so far as to my opinion of your recent film. But there is one scene, I think, that perfectly shows just how far you’ve fallen. The scene outside the house with the shotgun-wielding rednecks. We’re met with yet another example of shoddy directing from someone who knows better. Slow motion, M. Night? Really? I don’t recall a single instance of slow-motion in any of your other films, at all. Something I applaud, because, in general, I hate slow-motion. Thus far you’ve managed to avoid it. But that scene tore apart any illusions I might have had of your competence in this film. In a movie you’ve personally paraded around as being so brutally gory that it needed an R rating turned out to be anything but. Christ, the Sixth Sense had more gore than that, and it was rated PG-13! What happened!? Seriously, I want to know. Because a few digitally-added bullet holes and some fake blood do not equal scary. The closest you ever came to gut-wrenching horror was at the beginning, when Claire stabbed herself in the jugular, but somehow you managed to ruin that as well, for reasons mentioned above. You didn’t need slow-motion there, Shyamalan, did you? What changed?

I guess that last sentence drums up what I think of your latest film. This is perhaps the first time I honestly disliked one of your movies. Even Lady in the Water had more potential – a couple of rewrites would have fixed a lot of it – and I still think The Village was good, even though, in light of a recent change of opinion regarding your directorial competence, a re-view may be in order.

I think you missed big time with this one. I think every facet of the film needed desperate improvement, and I think you’re so lost in a world of self-congratulation that you’re starting to view everyone who gives you a negative opinion as an interloper who must be crushed beneath your mighty directorial heel. Which was why we had the stupid scene in Lady in the Water when the grass-wolf killed the film critic. Not subtle, M. Not subtle at all. It seems like a psychological deterioration that many dictators suffer once they grasp the power they have. Hey, M. Night! When one person doesn’t like your films, it may be alright to think that one person might be wrong. After all, confidence in your work is necessary for a director. But when an increasing majority of people laugh at your newest filmographic ventures, it’s not jealousy speaking. It’s not an overarching plan to oust your from your wood-and-canvas directors chair. It’s an honest opinion. Sure, it’s alright to disagree, but when it comes down to it, you put slow motion in your movie.

And that might be the greatest sin of all.

Sincerely,

Adam Franti

Why Infinity Ward should spend their ill-gotten gains in HELL

Infinity Ward, the creators of the multi-award winning and rabidly popular Call of Duty series, has been doing something right for at lest 5 years now. In 2003, they released what is, in my opinion, the absolute best WWII shooter to date: Call of Duty. Since then, they've released enough follow-up titles to make even the most rabid fanboy drool enough to put Pavlov's dogs to shame. It's almost a pity, then, that despite their awards, despite their millions of fans and despite their talented team, that they can't make a new game. At all.

I played Call of Duty when it first came out, mostly due to my obsession with all things World War II during my High School days. I had been a fan and frequent player of Medal of Honor: Allied Assault as well, and so when I first played CoD, I was blown away. The missions were all phenomenal, the voice acting was superb, the action was intense and balanced - everything worked and worked well. There was not a single thing that I can find to complain about it, and I still reinstall it from time to time, because it kicks ass. I'll even go as far as to say that it's better than Call of Duty 2, or 3, or 4. Although I don't really consider Call of Duty 3 a sequel - it was an over-glamorized expansion to Call of Duty 2.

It's true, and you all know it. Call of Duty 2 was a small improvement over 1, and it was mostly because of the graphics and those few tiny little game quirks that made stuff just a BIT smoother. But there was always something that bothered me, and I knew what it was when the first Nazi bastard fell down with a face full of lead: his was a scripted death. Let me remind those who aren't aware: this is at a point where America's Army, a free shooter game made by the Army, had adopted ragdoll physics at least a year prior. Medal of Honor: Pacific Assault sported not only full ragdolls, but an interactive environment (note: I'll not praise Pacific Assault for much, and the 'interactive environment' was limited to stuff falling off tables on occasion - but still an improvement over CoD 2's laughble physics). Let's not forget about Half-Life 2, which was released almost a full year before CoD 2, and sported a physics package that is second to none. Also on the list are Far Cry, Unreal Tournament (in whatever iteration of 4 years ago), Halo 2 and a myriad of other games. My point is, there was no excuse in 2005 to not have ragdoll physics, and there is certainly no excuse in 2007.

I can't imagine any other game developer that could smack it's customers around like this and get away with it. I understand the perspective 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it' mindset, but at this point it's like your grandad hanging on to a generator that was made in 1932 that he has to hit with a sledgehammer to get it to work simply because 'he has it in the garage'. Seriously. It's 2007. Slapping a number on the end of a game you've already made and giving it a make over won't cut it. At leas that's what I'd like to think. But it's apparently not what everyone else thinks. They continue to shell out pretty copies of a 5 year old game and laughing while they count all the money they're raking in. If you doubt me, you should play CoD 1, then pop in 4. Notice any similarities? Any characters? Any familiar mustaches?



They shouldn't make another Call of Duty until it deserves that additional number along with the title. Something that brings something new to the genre, not a skip ahead in time. A shooter should have physics for a start, destructible, open environments for an added bonus. Standard operating procedure in World War II was to blow a fucking hole in the wall instead of running into the friggin' machine gun lined up at the door. They do the same in Iraq, if interviews with the guys who fucking did it are any indication, so why haven't we seen the ability to do that in any game after Red Faction? You'd think with a company as creative and lucrative - not to mention prolific - as Infinity Ward would be able to spend the money and hire the guys who can make that a possibility. But they don't. They continue to shell out a game that should have stopped getting perfect cores with the first copy they forced on us, but you'd think by the fourth the gaming community would get wise and see past the veneer of "Modern Warfare".

But, as ever, I'm forced to look elsewhere. Gearbox as on the right track with Brothers in Arms, and I hope that Hell's Highway turns out to be as mind-meltingly awesome as it looks. Fact is, Call of Duty 4, despite being a fun and intense game, is as outdated as the mullet. But Developers will never get that idea unless us gamers start voting with our wallets and telling them we won't take their shit anymore.

Upcoming Games which Doth Erect Me

Dude! This month's issue of Game Informer has given me a promise of gamer sustenance in the current barren desert of not-so-cool game releases.

1. Aliens: Colonial Marines
2. Grand Theft Auto IV
3. Red Faction: Guerrilla
   

I know I've said that a title containing a colon pretty much guarantees a mediocre game. However, these games got it goin' on. I'm most excited about Red Faction: Guerrilla.

Many games claim to have "destructible environments." Gamers have since come to recognize that phrase to mean "shatter-able crates" or "exploding barrels" or even "whorishly bright-colored satchel icon on some surface right here which, upon explosion, turns to rubble!" These are neat script-based animations, but, sadly, not "destructible environments."

Way back in 2001, a game called Red Faction came out which actually allowed players to destroy their surroundings. You could put holes in walls, floors, and ceilings! Multiplayer matches mostly deteriorated into tunneling matches: combatants would use explosive weapons on cave walls to create and deepen holes to snipe from or to make alternate flag-returning routes. This technology made for many new and surprising multiplayer experiences.

Unfortunately, Red Faction II did not update or expand this technology. The developers of Guerilla recognize that flaw and seem to be back on the right path. In the game review, Red Faction: Geurilla is all about real "destructible environments." Imagine coming up to a building full of enemies and, instead of going inside to clear them out of each room, you place a few charges on the support pillars and just bring the whole fucker down killing everyone inside. Someone camping around the corner with a shotgun waiting to blast you? Put a hole through the drywall behind him and blast him. Someone on the roof above you? A few artfully placed rockets could drop him down a few floors. Think you're safe behind that concrete barrier? Think again.

Gamers have been waiting for this sort of realism for an eternity. Adam and I have been waiting for developers to combine real destructible environments with Half Life 2 physics in a World War 2 FPS setting for much, much longer.

America's Army

I killed some people yesterday. Also, I died a lot.

pwnt.

First Post Evar zomg

First post! Neato.

And here's something from LimerickDB:

Regarding the coming election,
I have carefully weighed my selection,
Mrs. Clinton's too old
And McCain leaves me cold,
But Obama gives me an erection.